نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشگاه تبریز
2 دانشجو- دانشگاه تبریز
3 دانشگاه تهران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
This study investigated the feasibility of new markets such as Surimi, Comobaco, fish Sausage based on lexicographic preferences in the provinces of Mazandaran and Tehran, with use of 600 questionnaire and applying logit model in the year of 2015. The results showed that willingness to pay of deontologist people in Tehran was 193240 Rial and for consequentialist was 178130 Rial while willingness to pay of deontologist people in Mazandran was 186350 Rial and for consequentialist was 151490 Rial. So, deontologists tended to pay more for these products compared with consequentialists. In Tehran province all the products had ability to enter the market. In Mazandran province Surimi product in both groups and Comobaco and fish sausage only in deontologist groups could enter to the market.
کلیدواژهها [English]
10. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2014). Fishery: Agricultural fishery in FAO. Retrieved January 12, 2014, from http://www.fao.org/ fishery.
11. Haixiao, H. & Miller, Y. (2003). Evaluation of swine odor management strategies in a fuzzy multi-criteria decision environment. American Agricultural Economics. Association annual meeting. Montreal. Canada.
12. .Hanemann, M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332-341
13. Holmes, T.P., Bergstromb, J. C., Huszarc, E. Kaskd, S.B. & Orr, F. (2004). Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 49(1), 19-30.
14. Hung, H.C., Kang, C.F. & Lee, A.H. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (4), 7917-7927.
15. James, B. (1984). An efficient R-Estimator for the ED50. Journal of American Statistical Association, 79(2), 73-167.
16. Larkin, S. & Gilbert, S. (2008).Firm-level hedonic analysis of U.S. produced surimi: implications for processors and resource managers. Annual meeting of the American agricultural economics association Salt Lake City, Utah.
17. Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., & Covich, A. (2000). Measuring the total economic value of restoring Eco system services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 103-117.
18. Mazroei, L. (2008). Consumer behavior in Omman Sea for fishery product. Ecological Economics, 44(3), 54-76.
19. Mitchell, R. & Carson, R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
20. Raizin, M. & Regier, L. (1989). Economic aspects of the Japanese kamaboko industry. Ecological Economics, 21(2), 23-41.
21. Rosenberger, R.S., Peterson, G.L., Clarke, A. & Brown, T.C. (2009). Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 63-76.
22. Salami, H. & Rafiee, H. (2011). Willingness to pay of international Anzali lake base on lexicographic preferences. Journal of Iran's natural resource, 64(2), 89-100 (In Farsi).
23. Spash, C.L. & Hanley, N. (2001). Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics, 12(4), 191-208
24. Venkatachalam, L. (2009). The contingent valuation Method: A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(3), 89-124.
Weber, M. A. & Stewart, S. (2009). Public values for river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restoration Ecology, 17(6), 762-771.
)